Turner v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Filing 21

ORDER directing as follows: (1) Petitioner's objection (Doc. # 20 ) is OVERRULED; (2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 19 ) is ADOPTED; (3) Petitioner's 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED; (4) This action is dismissed with prejudice because the § 2255 motion was filed after the expiration of the applicable one-year period of limitation, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f); (5) To the extent that Petitioner requests additional time to brief his objection, the request is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on March 31, 2015. (scn, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ANTHONY PERRIE TURNER, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 2:13-CV-734-WKW [WO] ORDER On February 19, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case (Doc. # 19), and Petitioner filed a timely objection (Doc. # 20). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b). In his objection, Petitioner reiterates the equitable-tolling arguments he previously made to the Magistrate Judge. The Recommendation addresses and properly rejects those arguments. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. Petitioner’s objection (Doc. # 20) is OVERRULED. 2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 19) is ADOPTED. 3. Petitioner’s 28 U.S.C. § 2255 motion is DENIED. 4. This action is dismissed with prejudice because the § 2255 motion was filed after the expiration of the applicable one-year period of limitation, 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f). 5. To the extent that Petitioner requests additional time to brief his objection, the request is DENIED. A separate judgment will be entered. DONE this 31st day of March, 2015. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?